Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360 - 381)
TUESDAY 7 APRIL 1998
BARONESS HOLLIS
OF HEIGHAM,
MS URSULA
BRENNAN and MS
CLAIRE EDWARDS
Mr Pond
360. Continuing the same debate here, I was very encouraged
at the description that Lady Hollis gave us about the way of trying
to rationalise assessing claims because all of us here will know
of difficulties faced by particular constituents. One who came
to see me on Friday, severely disabled, had to start getting ready
to come to my surgery on Friday the previous day, on the Thursday
afternoon. The extent of his disability has been confirmed by
numerous medical reports but he cannot get any help in any form
at all. He literally cannot leave the house. We do need very clearly,
and I know you understand this, to rationalise that whole process.
Can I move to the life awards issue and first of all a question
which we still have about the importance of life awards within
the overall case load. At the last session of evidence we were
shown tables in the helpful submission from the Department which
suggested that on the one hand about half of the awards were life
awards but in a second table that three quarters of those were
life awards. We are still seeking clarification as to which of
those two is correct.
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I think the answer
to that is straight forwardly that of the entire body of DLA recipients
something like two-thirds, three-quarters had life awards but
of the current people coming on to the DLA 50 per cent have. I
think that is correct.
361. Right.
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) In other words what
happened was back in 1992, 1993, particularly with the problems
of administering DLA—the demand for DLA understandably exploded
on the unsuspecting Department I think—officials were encouraged
if at all possible to give a life award in preference to any other.
There was a presumption in favour of life awards only if it was
clear that somebody was unlikely to get better fairly rapidly.
That is one of the reasons why so many of those awards were according
to DLAAB and some of the research information we now have, made
on insufficient evidence. Again, I emphasise I am not saying they
were incorrect but they were without sufficient evidence.
362. This of course is the seeds of many of the problems
we now face with the benefit. I think you told us earlier that
65 per cent of the awards in 1992 were life awards so those inevitably
continue. Without wishing to put a question to you which must
appear to be the most difficult question ever posed to a witness
before a Select Committee, what is the meaning of `life'? To focus
down on that in a way which you might be able to answer, is it
not the case that the term "life awards" in itself encourages
a misunderstanding amongst claimants? The rules state very clearly
that should circumstances change then of course the change in
circumstances must be notified and claimants no longer have the
entitlement to benefit at that level. In that case does the terminology
itself not tend to encourage an overpayment over time without
any malice or wilful intent on the part of claimants?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I agree. I do not
know what the alternative form of wording is. I think "indefinite
award period" might be a more accurate description. You are
absolutely right with life awards we are currently trying to strike
a balance between not unnecessarily harassing and troubling people
whose condition and care needs have remained constant and whose
eligibility for that particular level of award of DLA has therefore
remained constant, on the one hand, while making sure that we
are picking up people whose condition has changed on the other.
If someone's condition changes, improves or gets worse it will
not be recorded in files within the DSS, neatly fitting into a
category; it may happen slowly, incrementally over a couple of
years. People may not even be aware that their condition has changed
for award purposes. One of the things we will be looking at is
whether the concept of "life awards" is a useful concept.
Even if someone has a life award because we do not want to keep
hassling people, nonetheless there remains an obligation on the
Department to remind people on a regular basis that if they have
experienced any change they have an obligation to report it to
us. We want to do that in a helpful and positive and supportive
way. It may be if they keep their original claim form and then
we, this is one possible way, send out on an every other year
basis asking, "Is it still the case that you meet the conditions
for the life award?" That may be a way of doing it. It would
be silly to throw out the baby with the bath water and get rid
of life awards altogether but nonetheless there is a major problem
for us in using that term appropriately and in ways people understand.
Chairman: We have two or three areas left and I promised
to release you by half past five if I can. I want to concentrate
on the future of the Disability Living Allowance and Malcolm Wicks
has some questions on that.
Mr Wicks
363. We have touched on the question of the Green Paper
stating that this is a universal national benefit and obviously
means testing is ruled out. Can I press you a little bit on taxation,
unfairly I know because this is a matter for the Chancellor. Is
not the logic of DLA that one is trying to make the position of
an individual with a disability as equal as possible vis-a-vis
a similar person without a disability? Therefore there is a care
component and a disability component. Is not the logic of that
that one should not be taxing the benefit?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I think there are
two competing views on this, it will not surprise you. One is
that DLA is producing a level playing field between those who
have a disability and those who do not. In part it cannot do it
entirely but it makes a contribution to a more level playing field
at every income level irrespective of whether you are on £60
a week or £600 a week. The other argument is if you are dealing
with financial resources and a growing number of elderly people
who form the majority of disabled people then there is also a
second consideration of whether you should target what help you
have on those who are most severely disabled and those in financial
need. That is the conflicting argument. Means testing has been
ruled out and I am delighted that it has been ruled out. Taxation
has not been ruled out, not that it has been ruled in either,
but there is an honourable debate still to be had on that subject.
At the end of the day I cannot take you any further than saying
obviously this is a matter for the Chancellor.
364. I understand this is a proper debate affecting other
benefits too. Given that one wants a better interface if not integration
between taxation and benefits, would there not be some illogicality
in the benefits system if you were saying, "You need this
benefit", but the tax system is saying, "No, treat it
as income in the normal way and tax it"?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) The analogies are
not complete but it is not so very different from the debate over
child benefit. I think that is something more generally as a society
we have to resolve.
365. Could I ask about the non-take-up of DLA because
in a way the thrust of the Benefit Integrity Project in part is
a suggestion that too many people are claiming. Obviously there
is an issue about the numbers of people claiming disability benefits
and how it has risen but there seems to be some research evidence
that maybe 50 per cent of people who should be getting DLA are
not getting it, the familiar non-take-up problem. Do you have
any evidence on what the non-take-up may be? Can I ask you a slightly
more complex questions. From the survey evidence we have does
the Department have a view about how many people, as it were,
should be getting the DLA?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Certainly what we
have got at the moment from the emerging findings of disability
surveys from a different methodology to that used by OPCS (the
full results of which will be published in the autumn and we will
then all be able to engage in a proper debate) is a finding that
there are something like 2 million more disabled people in the
population than registered in 1985. How much of that statistic
is methodology and how much of that is associated with a growing
number of elderly people I do not know but certainly the guidance
I have had from officials and academic researchers is it is almost
certainly largely a methodological result rather than a growth
in ill-health and disability in the population. Having said that,
nonetheless the finding that only 40 to 50 per cent of those entitled
to DLA are claiming it is obviously something that concerns me
very much. We had believed that because since 1992 the number
of people claiming DLA had gone up from one million to two million
and because it was a benefit that was well-known to health professionals
that we did not have an issue of take-up. We assumed there might
be ten or fifteen per cent non-take-up, which is a problem that
tends to happen with a benefit particularly where the elderly
are mostly in receipt of it. I think we have all been taken by
surprise by this figure and therefore we need to look at why people
are not claiming. When we have found out why they are not claiming
we can then in discussion with the organisations come forward
with proposals as to how to encourage appropriate take up. It
is not dissimilar to the issue that the Department is facing where
something like one million pensioners are not claiming the income
support to which they are entitled and the Department have recently
announced a pilot study at a cost of £15 million to see why
they are not taking it up. Only when we know why can we get on
with the how. It is a problem that surprised us. It certainly
surprised me. We are now going to have to reflect on that and
see what further work we can do to identify the reasons for it
and then in conjunction with disability groups see how we can
address it.
366. A credible integrity project—we use the word
"integrity"—is presumably about making sure those
that are getting a benefit properly deserve it?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Yes.
367. But to make sure also those who should be getting
it get it. I do not know if the Treasury have a special pool of
money called the "Spend-to-Spend" programme, but I suspect
they do not. You are saying that you would be prepared to launch
a take-up programme?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) What I am saying
is entitlement is a two-way movement and that the Department has
an obligation to address that problem.
368. A final question from me. From some of the implications
about what we have heard about what has gone wrong with BIP in
terms of the work of the Department—and I am thinking of
other problems we have had in the recent past; I do not want to
get into the CSA but obviously that comes to mind—I am beginning
to get an impression about the DSS, long before you having responsibility
for this, that there are in Whitehall people making judgements
about what is required but that the implementation of it depends
inevitably on what happens on the ground with officials, and that
the two do not always bear a very good relationship to one another.
In other words, if levers are pulled in Richmond House or wherever,
"We need child support or an integrity project", then
what happens is sometimes, not always of course, altogether different.
As the Department embarks on a legislative programme which is
going to change a lot of things, I guess, is the Department reflecting
on that relationship between policy and implementation?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Certainly we have
been reflecting on relationship of policy and agency which is
part of that difficulty.
369. Yes.
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Perhaps I am not
answering your question directly because I am not sure that I
can. I think one of the things that if I was not clear before
hand I have learned over the last nine months is that on any such
policy area—it could be the Child Support Agency, could
be Disability Benefits—there are very many stakeholders.
Those include the policy advice givers, the implementers and the
delivery of policy and this is particularly transparent when you
look at something like CSA but also other stakeholders, there
may be the lobby groups, the advisory boards, the MPs in their
constituencies and so on. I think one of the crucial jobs of trying
to be a minister is actually to make sure that you get all of
those voices firstly playing within the system, coming into the
system, and secondly that you can engage in a dialogue to take
forward policy. It is about—a phrase I have used before—all
of the stakeholders actually owning the problem. It is very clear
that if you try to develop policy without a continuous loop back
from implementation, policy is flawed, but if you do without any
lateral input from the disability organisations then you lose
a very key area of expertise about what it is like to be on the
receiving end. I think one of the jobs as a minister is to facilitate,
to enable that common ownership, that bringing together of disparate
voices into addressing a common problem. I am hoping very much
that we are going to be able to deliver that.
370. More pilots and research?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Certainly that is
going to be a consequence of it. There are lots of things we do
not know and in so far as research will tell us that then obviously
that must be the way we must go.
Chairman: Another important group of people who have
a stake in all this is the courts. We would like to spend a moment
or two looking at the consequences of the Halliday judgment
and Gisela Stuart has some questions on that.
Mrs Stuart
371. Yes, also I just want to thank you for these figures
and the information you have had ready for us. I am not sure whether
that means you were extremely well prepared or we were very predictable.
I am hoping the former not the latter. You mentioned one of the
reasons for the suspension of BIP in 1997 was the Halliday
judgment. We know from Hansard in June the Government estimated
that some 3,000 people were in a similar position. Tell me, with
hindsight, do you think the Halliday judgment stretched
DLA too far?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I think the courts
were entirely entitled to make the interpretation of the law as
they did. We work within the framework of the law.
372. One of our concerns is that judgments like the Halliday
judgment are pushing up the boundaries. Do you find there may
be a conflict between the original intentions of what certain
benefits were meant to deliver and then became?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I do not want to
sound like copping out on this but DLA was introduced by the previous
administration back in 1992.
Chairman
373. You are allowed to say that once I think.
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I am allowed to say
it once, right. This is the question I am copping out on. Given
that the benefit was introduced in 1992 I could not and would
not dream of seeking to describe or enter into the mind set of
ministers at that time as to what their intent was. I am in the
position in which we came into office and I learnt about BIP in
the framework and the context of Halliday and the Mallinson
judgments and clearly we operate within that legal framework.
Mrs Stuart
374. Do you find the judgment helpful or unhelpful?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) To disabled people
extremely helpful.
Mrs Stuart: I will leave it there.
Chairman
375. I know Frank Roy wants to ask a question in this
area as well but let me be a wee bit unfair and turn to Ms Brennan
who last week confessed to the authorship of DLA and defended
it quite robustly and very well, as rightly she should, but can
I address that same question about the court judgment to Ms Brennan?
(Ms Brennan) Yes. I suspect I have a slightly
different perspective. From the point of view of an administrator
responsible for benefit, court judgments that push the boundary
of entitlement can make the benefit unstable. I can understand
Lady Hollis has inherited something and she did not choose the
way it started or the way it has moved, but if you are responsible
for running a benefit one of the things you want to be able to
say is, customers and claimants understand what this benefit is
about so they can make a reasonably good guess if they apply for
this whether they are going to get it, ministers in governments
can make a reasonably good guess that says: "This is who
I want the money to go to and broadly this is how much, roughly,
I expect to spend on it". If your benefit is constantly being
nibbled away at the edges and the boundary is pushed out and it
starts going to more people than you intended then it is harder
to target any activity on take up if you want to do that on your
client group; it is harder for people to anticipate whether or
not they are going to be entitled which makes it difficult for
them to know whether to apply or whether to appeal or to seek
a review if a decision goes against them; and it is difficult
for you to estimate how much money you are going to spend. If
you are constantly in a position where you say: "I intended
it to go to this group and I intended it to cost me this amount
of money and it is now going to a bigger group and more money"
that is uncovenanted expenditure. You might, as a policy maker
or a minister, have said: "My top priority, if I have an
extra £5 million pounds, is to spend it on this group but
the courts have decided to spend £50 million or £5 million
or £1 million on that group" and it will not necessarily
be the group that you as a minister have chosen. That is why I
have a difference——
376. Different perspective.
(Ms Brennan) —— a different perspective
on Halliday and Mallinson and so on.
Mr Roy
377. The Committee has had written evidence to suggest
that DLA does not suit people with mental health problems and
some of the evidence suggested maybe we should look at putting
a third component in DLA. A third component in DLA would be basically
a mental health component, what are your views?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I think that is a
very interesting thought. At the moment, of course, somebody who
requires constant attention or supervision by day gets middle
rate care and by day and by night higher rate care and may also
get, if they require attention out of doors, which would usually
run alongside this, lower rate mobility. I agree—again I
would defer to Ursula because she was involved with setting the
benefit up—that the benefit is more easily read across to
conditions of severe physical disability than to mental health
problems. This is not peculiar to DLA, Incapacity Benefit is another
problem where if you have somebody with fluctuating mental health
conditions, in terms of the OPCS severity scale they can be quite
moderate mental health difficulties, nonetheless all the evidence
is they are the people who find it hardest to take up work. I
think you are right, I think mental health as an area presents
major problems for a disability system because quite mild problems
of mental health may generate quite high care needs in terms of
supervision and attendance and may also, when we move across to
the other benefit of IB, produce particular problems about ability
to work because of the apparent unpredictability of the condition.
I think it is a very interesting suggestion and certainly it is
one I expect the disability groups to encourage us to look at
more fully but we will take it away.
Chairman
378. You have said some very interesting and quite extensive
things about consultation and the lessons that you have learned.
I wonder if I could focus that slightly in relation to the Disability
Living Allowance Advisory Board. Do you think there is a case
for strengthening the role that they have?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) I think there is
everything to be said for any minister making use of the expertise
that is available and the expertise of a certain sort that is
with DLAAB. Clearly their role as an independent advisory body—seven
of their members are disabled, one is a carer and so on and the
others are mostly associated with the health field—is a
very real and important area of expertise. It is not the only
area of expertise. A different sort of expertise lies with the
disability organisations for disabled people. I think it is an
important player. I was delighted in both the formal meeting I
had with the DLAAB Board and the informal meetings I had with
the Chairman, Professor Grahame, to encourage them to come forward
with their policy views reflecting that experience and it is something
I would like to explore with them further.
379. Can I ask you a final question, unless colleagues
have any final supplementaries—I know this is a difficult
question because you will say the business managers are in control
of the Parliamentary timetable—you have obviously been thinking
about this a lot and now you have some experience about the Disability
Living Allowance under your belt, some of it pretty dramatic I
would guess, and none of that is your fault, but what is the time
frame for taking this forward? Obviously if there were to be substantial
changes in the design of the benefit, some of the things we have
been talking about, including mental incapacity, that kind of
thing, that would require changes to the primary legislation programme
now. I guess the DSS has the advantage, if indeed it is an advantage,
of changing the primary legislative framework almost every year
because there are Social Security Bills. Do you have it in mind
to make changes to the DLA through primary legislation? If so,
is it likely to happen this October rather than next?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Certainly there is
no intention to bring forward legislation on disability in the
forthcoming year. Whether there will be any proposals for primary
legislation as opposed to changes through regulations will depend
very much on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review
that the Department is engaged in, but more particularly on the
work with the Disability Benefits Forum with which we are currently
working. The two basic issues we are going to be asking the Disability
Benefits Forum to consider is DLA more generally, the gateways
to it, questions of entitlement, take-up, all of those issues,
the sort of things Frank Roy was raising in terms of mental health.
Although we are committed to DLA as a benefit to meet extra costs
(and committed to it very firmly as a universal and national benefit),
we will be having seminars on DLA gateways leap-frogged with seminars
and consultative meetings on Incapacity Benefit as to how we can
best reform the "all work test", so it is less assigning
people out of the mainstream labour market and allowing them to
come back into the mainstream if they so choose. Following these
discussions—this work will take us over many months—I
would expect there to be a need to change the law. Whether that
is through primary legislation, whether it is done in regulations
will depend very much on the nature of the changes that we would
seek to do. What we have given an assurance on is that any such
proposals would only come forward after full consultation with
the organisations concerned.
Ms Stuart
380. Given that there is a recognition that further training
needs to be done and also some refining of the process of the
Benefit Integrity Project, would you at this stage consider freezing
the project?
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) No. We did consider
it because this was put to us by the Disability Benefits Consortium,
but on reflection we decided we could not accede to that request
because we did feel we have a responsibility to check the continuing
entitlement of people through the Benefit Integrity Project. We
recognise that despite the meeting on 10 June when we made a number
of adjustments to the project on reflection that was not comprehensive
enough; following the announcement by the Secretary of State on
the 9 February and my own meeting on 23 March we have made further
changes of an incremental sort, that would improve BIP. So that
is where we are.
Chairman
381. Can I say thank you very much. As I always say,
and I know it to be true, it is not just the appearance in front
of this Committee, it is the work that goes on in providing these
very helpful notes and we have two extra notes this afternoon
which we did not start the proceedings having. It would be very
helpful to the formal process of the report which I hope will
be produced without further delay. Thank you very much for coming.
(Baroness Hollis of Heigham) Thank you very much
for inviting me.
|
